8 Nov 2023
Starting point of 18 months imprisonment was appropriate for the offending; uplift of four months to account for prior indecent offending and repeated breaches of an ESO produced an end point of 22 months; mitigation from health assessor evidence and alcohol/trauma was rejected as insufficient and undermined by the defendant's denial, and preventive detention was not pursued by the Crown.
13 Apr 2022
Imposition of the mandatory three strikes sentence (14 years without parole) would be grossly disproportionate and breach s9 NZBORA given the ordinary sentencing outcome for this offending (starting point six years, with a two-thirds MPI producing a four year MPI) and the offender's deprived background; accordingly the court declined to apply the statutory maximum and sentenced according to ordinary sentencing principles to six years' imprisonment with an MPI of four years.
14 Feb 2022
The Court held the 12 month starting point was within range given the premeditated and relatively sophisticated targeting of a vulnerable elderly victim and the single transfer of $2,100; an uplift for extensive prior dishonesty convictions and offending while on sentence was appropriate though at the high end; the cultural report and mental health issues warranted a larger discount than 10 per cent but not as high as 25 per cent, resulting in substitution of the 11 month sentence with nine and a half months' imprisonment.
14 May 2021
Court adopted an 18‑month imprisonment starting point based on clear premeditation and the victim's extreme vulnerability; applied a full 25% discount for an early guilty plea and a combined 25% discount (20% for age/serious health/mental state and 5% for genuine remorse), yielding an adjusted term of nine months which enabled consideration of a non‑custodial option; balancing sanctity of life and proportionality, court imposed four and a half months' home detention with strict conditions including restricted visits to the victim with permission and approved supervision.
7 May 2021
The offender inflicted a single spontaneous high-force impact causing catastrophic brain injury to a particularly vulnerable 17-month-old child; although the evidence did not support an inference of intention to kill and the offending was out of character, s104 applies and, given the seriousness, absence of remorse and need for denunciation and deterrence, a 17-year minimum period of imprisonment is not manifestly unjust; accordingly impose life imprisonment with a 17-year MPI.
29 Jun 2020
Life imprisonment is mandatory; although s104 was engaged because the victim was extremely vulnerable and entrusted to the offender, imposing the 17 year MPI required by s104 would be manifestly unjust given the offender's youth, lack of prior record and mitigating factors; after selecting a starting point MPI of 15.5 years and applying a 3 year youth discount and an 18 month discount for an early guilty plea the appropriate MPI is 11 years.
29 May 2020
Section 104(1)(e) and (g) are engaged because the murder involved sustained savage violence and the victim was particularly vulnerable, but because of significant mitigating factors—first offender, absence of premeditation, demonstrable remorse, and a diagnosed moderate-severity Autism Spectrum Disorder that materially reduces moral culpability and maturity—the imposition of the statutory 17-year minimum would be manifestly unjust; the appropriate minimum non-parole period is 14 years and life imprisonment is imposed.
22 May 2020
Leave to appeal out of time granted. The Court held s104 was engaged: planning met the 'calculated or lengthy' threshold based on extensive internet research and prior conduct; high level of callousness present including post-offence disposal and statements; the victim was particularly vulnerable due to very small stature and occupation (court excluded cerebral palsy from assessment in this appeal). The combined presence of planning, callousness and vulnerability justified an uplift from the statutory 17-year MPI to 18 years; the appeal against sentence was dismissed.
7 Aug 2019
Although the offence involved premeditation and a particularly vulnerable victim, the Court found the combination of severe, chronic carer burden, cumulative stress, a moderately severe recurrent major depressive disorder, longstanding mitigation factors, absence of prior offending, genuine remorse and low risk of reoffending made this case exceptional such that life imprisonment would be manifestly unjust; the appropriate finite sentence was 12 years with a minimum period of imprisonment of six years under s86.
25 Jun 2019
The Court upheld the sentencing Judge's exercise of discretion to impose a 50% MPI (six years of a 12‑year sentence) because, considered collectively under s 86, the gravity, duration and multiplicity of offending, the victim's vulnerability, breach of trust, lack of remorse and assessed high risk of reoffending meant a one‑third non‑parole period was insufficient; the proposed fresh evidence was not admissible as it was not truly fresh and could have been obtained with reasonable diligence, and Corrections' operational practices do not justify declining an MPI.